Aug 19, 2008 3 min read

As he did two years ago on the campaign trail, state Rep. Bill DeWeese is flashing a laminated postcard-sized map of the state with lines showing where “Pennsylvania Budget Leaders” are from. The card is designed to visualize two things: How eight of the 13 are from the southeastern area of the state (including Philadelphia), and how DeWeese is the only one from southwestern Pennsylvania. To the extent that one man’s voice can make a strong difference among 13 equals, it’s fair to say that DeWeese is the region’s only presence at the budget table. But any implication that without DeWeese the three counties he represents, or the region in general, would fall into disarray or neglect is at best untrue imagery. At worst, it’s nothing more than a scare tactic.

Looking at DeWeese’s little map, the Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Erie areas have zero representation at the all-important budget table. Are we to take from that omission a belief that they get nothing, in terms of state assistance or projects? A look at Pittsburgh’s new sports stadiums, built with significant state tax money, shows quite handily that a region can do quite well without someone actually sitting at the budget table.

Certainly, it’s indisputable that DeWeese has gotten two state prisons (in Franklin and Luzerne townships) for his 50th Legislative District, and the possibility exists of adding a third in German Township. But truthfully, while those jobs are much needed and welcomed here, they are not the type of employment some other areas will accept.

DeWeese is also telling anyone who will listen that he served as Speaker of the House from 1993-94, a rare distinction for his district and rural areas in general. He’s correct on both counts, and we can’t and won’t dismiss the magnitude of that accomplishment.

But what DeWeese isn’t quick to reveal is this: He lost the speakership in 1994 because of a defection within his own Democratic Party – and he couldn’t reclaim the prize when Democrats regained control in 2007 for the very same reason. In both cases, fellow Democrats fed up with DeWeese’s leadership style lined up against him. That, too, appears to be a historical rarity for his district and the region in general, if not the entire state.

Granted, as majority leader for the current session, DeWeese has had to focus on big-picture issues that advance his caucus’ agenda, things like education funding, energy strategy, mine safety reform and revamping the state’s open records law. But those are items the caucus would likely advance anyway, no matter who was their floor leader. We can’t imagine Democrats abandoning their core principles on governance should DeWeese no longer sit at the budget table, any more than Republicans abandoned theirs when state Rep. John Perzel (R-Philadelphia) lost the speakership and went back to being a rank-and-file member.

It’s far better for DeWeese to tell us how he intends to stay in power if re-elected, given the open rebellion among his own ranks concerning his continuation as the face of his party. And to tell us how he has used, and intends to us, that power to the continued benefit of his legislative district.

As redistricting has often shown, anyone can use a map to his or her political advantage. Even a postcard-sized one.